http://www.rules.house.gov/110/special_rules/hr6842/110_hr6842_childers.pdf
This passed the US House today
This passed the US House today
Childers Gun Bill passes
- Thread starter LAR-15
- Start date
- Status
Duke Junior
member
Very good.
When it finally reaches the Senate,it might be a difficult passage.
When it finally reaches the Senate,it might be a difficult passage.
KnightHawk67
Member
Yeah, and who will vote:
PRESENT!
PRESENT!
ServiceSoon
Member
Why are they able to purchase firearms in another state than their resident state and I am not?
Duke Junior
member
D.C. is not a state.It's a Federal District.
They(the H.R.) are seemingly trying to compensate for that with this bill.
romma
Member
Maybe that will change soon and you will be able to!
Uenoparker
Member
Childers was allowed to put this bill forward to secure his position as the Rep for Northwestern MS. This give him the creds to beat the Republican candidate (Greg Davis) in November. This bill is going nowhere (regretably), and is (IMO) intended only for Childers' benefit.
Why are they able to purchase firearms in another state than their resident state and I am not?
Folks, some of you don't get it, THIS IS GOOD.
The SC was very detailed in saying that DC's status as a federal enclave has no bearing on constitutional law, at least as regards 2A. Which was one of the (many) reasons that Heller went through.
This bill provides DC residents with an exception from the current laws saying "Though can only buy and take possession of a pistol in your home state".
If this becomes settled law then it blows a massive hole in said restriction as it cannot be argued in law that DC is "special" from a 2A perspective as this has already been explicitly blown out of the the water by Heller.
If DC residents can buy in MD or VA, commerce laws as well as a whole pile of other settled civil rights and constitutional laws says that residents of MD and VA cannot be discriminated against and the flow has to be at the least bidirectional and arguably a triangle trade.
The other 46 states residents then automatically fall into the same category of being discriminated against under colour of law.
This inherently implies and requires incorporation of 2A.
This then becomes ground for a very tasty legal battle over the constitutionality of an individual states restrictions on firearms based on cosmetic features or magazine capacity etc.
Folks, some of you don't get it, THIS IS GOOD.
The SC was very detailed in saying that DC's status as a federal enclave has no bearing on constitutional law, at least as regards 2A. Which was one of the (many) reasons that Heller went through.
This bill provides DC residents with an exception from the current laws saying "Though can only buy and take possession of a pistol in your home state".
If this becomes settled law then it blows a massive hole in said restriction as it cannot be argued in law that DC is "special" from a 2A perspective as this has already been explicitly blown out of the the water by Heller.
If DC residents can buy in MD or VA, commerce laws as well as a whole pile of other settled civil rights and constitutional laws says that residents of MD and VA cannot be discriminated against and the flow has to be at the least bidirectional and arguably a triangle trade.
The other 46 states residents then automatically fall into the same category of being discriminated against under colour of law.
This inherently implies and requires incorporation of 2A.
This then becomes ground for a very tasty legal battle over the constitutionality of an individual states restrictions on firearms based on cosmetic features or magazine capacity etc.
Duke Junior
member
You are very much correct,everallm.A fine analysis.The disgusting GCA of 1968 may be on it's way out beginning with this very bill.
Last edited:
Duke Junior
member
Agree Rubble.It will be very difficult.That why I said in post #2:
.
romma
Member
Don't these people want to follow our constitution? Whether or not if Feinstein likes the law or not, she has sworn an oath... Typical and grounds for impeachment I say!
Mainsail
Member
All I see is a blind link, is there a story there?
Megistopoda
Member
Apologies for a long post ... it was posted elsewhere.
As this thread states, yesterday the US house passed the "Second Amendment Enforcement Act" as an amendment to another bill. The bill that passed endeavors to strip the District of Columbia of most of its authority to regulate firearms.
This is a victory for gun rights in the US, if only a symbolic one in the immediate future. One reason this bipartisan, Democrat-sponsored amendment passed is to provide "election cover" for relatively pro-gun rights dems (who hail from generally pro-gun rights districts). But it is also testament to the fact that the Dems (and this includes house speaker Nancy Pelosi) know that passing gun control really hurts their party and threatens its majority. That's a good thing.
So out of sheer curiosity, I read through most of the floor arguments of the bill. The transcript of that is available here (scroll to item #117 and click link):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r110...DDATE+20080916)
I have a few thoughts on this whole issue, after having read it.
1) The Heller decision is profound in effect. Pro-2A supporters leaned heavily on the decision, calling it "fundamental", "binding", and "law of the land." The anti-2A folks just cannot argue Heller's significance, though Waxman tried to limit its scope.
2) The pro-2A folks are getting their chops down, citing research on gun and crime control, defensive gun use, and documented data showing that criminials are uneffected by gun control while law-abiders are. It's becoming increasingly clear that gun control just doesn't do what it's proponents argue it does ... and those "same old arguments" and talking points are falling flat for more and more people. Plus, the Heller decision seems to have heightened scrutiny of gun control arguments.
3) Many of the pro-2A arguments were simple and clear - Heller mandates that people have a right to keep and bear arms, and the congress simply must uphold that mandate. These arguments really take the wind out of the sails of those who argue that congress must regulate firearms. Also, pro-rights congressmen and women are using the strong argument that 250 representatives and 55 senators signed the pro-Heller brief. They are holding feet to fire.
4) The anti-2A folks used many of the same talking points that have fallen flat, and still relied on exaggeration and hyperbole for effect (eg. using terms like "assault", "machine gun", "weapons of war", "high-capacity", "high-powered", "children carrying loaded assault weapons", etc.). During the argument, these buzzwords and argument were often made by one side, but were ignored by the other. This indicates that the pro-2A people simply see these things as distractions and arguments not even worthy of rebuttal. I think those old scare tactics are being considered hype, and dismissed.
5) And along with point 4 above, in this case the main arguments were not just around the dangers of guns ... in fact the primary argument was that democracy was being threatened if Congress over-rode the will of the DC mayor and city council. But that argument just didn't fly with most. It was said that "DC has a right to self-govern" ... but it was clear that individual's rights (to keep and bear) trumped the "right" of a government body to legislate, let alone to legislate away a fundamental, personal right. It was clear to most that DC was playing games, and referred to their "new emergency legislation" as "too little too late." DC council was roundly seen as having been defiant of the Heller decision. They had their chance and blew it ... and it was Congress obligation to fix it.
At any rate, it is clear to me that the old gun control talking points are falling flat, and that the Heller decision really, really provides backing authority for the pro-2A arguments. If house and senate debates on forthcoming gun control bills go anything like the debate surrounding this DC issue ... it seems pretty clear to me that it's going to be very difficult now, post-Heller, to get any significant gun control bills passed. If anything, I expect finally to see some pro-2A bills come up, and pass.
Just my thoughts ...
As this thread states, yesterday the US house passed the "Second Amendment Enforcement Act" as an amendment to another bill. The bill that passed endeavors to strip the District of Columbia of most of its authority to regulate firearms.
This is a victory for gun rights in the US, if only a symbolic one in the immediate future. One reason this bipartisan, Democrat-sponsored amendment passed is to provide "election cover" for relatively pro-gun rights dems (who hail from generally pro-gun rights districts). But it is also testament to the fact that the Dems (and this includes house speaker Nancy Pelosi) know that passing gun control really hurts their party and threatens its majority. That's a good thing.
So out of sheer curiosity, I read through most of the floor arguments of the bill. The transcript of that is available here (scroll to item #117 and click link):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r110...DDATE+20080916)
I have a few thoughts on this whole issue, after having read it.
1) The Heller decision is profound in effect. Pro-2A supporters leaned heavily on the decision, calling it "fundamental", "binding", and "law of the land." The anti-2A folks just cannot argue Heller's significance, though Waxman tried to limit its scope.
2) The pro-2A folks are getting their chops down, citing research on gun and crime control, defensive gun use, and documented data showing that criminials are uneffected by gun control while law-abiders are. It's becoming increasingly clear that gun control just doesn't do what it's proponents argue it does ... and those "same old arguments" and talking points are falling flat for more and more people. Plus, the Heller decision seems to have heightened scrutiny of gun control arguments.
3) Many of the pro-2A arguments were simple and clear - Heller mandates that people have a right to keep and bear arms, and the congress simply must uphold that mandate. These arguments really take the wind out of the sails of those who argue that congress must regulate firearms. Also, pro-rights congressmen and women are using the strong argument that 250 representatives and 55 senators signed the pro-Heller brief. They are holding feet to fire.
4) The anti-2A folks used many of the same talking points that have fallen flat, and still relied on exaggeration and hyperbole for effect (eg. using terms like "assault", "machine gun", "weapons of war", "high-capacity", "high-powered", "children carrying loaded assault weapons", etc.). During the argument, these buzzwords and argument were often made by one side, but were ignored by the other. This indicates that the pro-2A people simply see these things as distractions and arguments not even worthy of rebuttal. I think those old scare tactics are being considered hype, and dismissed.
5) And along with point 4 above, in this case the main arguments were not just around the dangers of guns ... in fact the primary argument was that democracy was being threatened if Congress over-rode the will of the DC mayor and city council. But that argument just didn't fly with most. It was said that "DC has a right to self-govern" ... but it was clear that individual's rights (to keep and bear) trumped the "right" of a government body to legislate, let alone to legislate away a fundamental, personal right. It was clear to most that DC was playing games, and referred to their "new emergency legislation" as "too little too late." DC council was roundly seen as having been defiant of the Heller decision. They had their chance and blew it ... and it was Congress obligation to fix it.
At any rate, it is clear to me that the old gun control talking points are falling flat, and that the Heller decision really, really provides backing authority for the pro-2A arguments. If house and senate debates on forthcoming gun control bills go anything like the debate surrounding this DC issue ... it seems pretty clear to me that it's going to be very difficult now, post-Heller, to get any significant gun control bills passed. If anything, I expect finally to see some pro-2A bills come up, and pass.
Just my thoughts ...
KBintheSLC
Member
I agree... the House seems to do a little better job of representing the view of the people. The Senate on the other hand seems more closely tied to special interests, and the loathsome DC elite. Makes sense considering 3 of the 4 oval office candidates/vice-candidates came out of the Senate.
Duke Junior
member
Very finely explained thoughts and another excellent analysis.
Thank you,Megistopedia.
You are right on target,Kimber.This is why,IMO,one of America's biggest mistakes was amending the Constitution in 1913, from Senators being selected by State Legislators to a direct vote of the people.
It worked fine the old way for 124 years.This way, cronyism and the inherent advantage of the incumbent, leaves us with people like Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd sitting in what amounts to lifetime appointments.
And yet,only 2 Senators since 1789, have moved from the Senate directly to the White House,
Warren G.Harding and John Kennedy.A third awaits.
Duke Junior
member
60 votes are needed.
Right now its a 50-49-1 Dem advantage in the Senate.
You can do the math and see the bill has an uphill battle.
- Status
